Arch Linux

I should note that I did check all of the files in /etc/module.d/ and /lib/modules/2.6.32-ARCH/ for corruption, but there wasn't any reference to the warning contents information anyway. I read that someone had suggested doing that, but I couldn't find any other tips to solving the problem.

It does appear that the problem is not of the user's making. Therefore, I submit that this is a bug in the upgrade procedure.

(Don't you just hate errors without clear explanations?)

Thanks.

Run: 'find /sys/devices -name modalias'. Then take the files, and looks which one contains the string you found above.

I went down the list and found this file with the referenced information; /sys/devices/virtual/dmi/id/modalias. But like the error, all brackets and parenthesis match up in pairs. I have no idea what is wrong. Is the parser not working correctly?

I think that this is not a valid modalias string. Our scripts try to do "modprobe --resolve-alias $(cat /sys/devices/virtual/dmi/id/modalias)" which throws the error (just guessing, please verify). I don't think anything is supposed to happen here though, there's usually no kernel modules ot load for dmi aliases.

I wouldn't have any way to know what is a valid string or not. There are at least two bits of information missing; what is the format for a valid string, and what kind of information can be a valid string. Further, who knows where the error messages come from? I know I don't, nor do I have any way to verify anything like that. To top it off, I know for a fact that I don't know what is supposed to happen, and I also know that any error message is bad. Especially when it is wrong. There appears to be a serious flaw somewhere.

I've also noticed that there is a problem with the way these files are set up. Most of the files where simply a couple characters in size, and hardly any were more than one line. That method appears to cause more problems than it solves. Even rc.conf has much more information than any of these, and to make it worse, they have the same name. Just how many modalias files are necessary within one OS? Disk reads alone would be a slowdown to the system. There appears to be little doubt that someone needs to look into the basic design before more of the same is done. At the very least, a better system would eliminate these types of errors.

Thanks.

I don't understand any of what you just said. Can you please explain what you are trying to say?

Sorry for not being clear, and thank you for asking. Too many people don't bother.

First, I was attempting to reply to the comment about a valid string. Basically, I can't offer verification, as you requested, because of the reasons I gave.

Then I was making general comments about part of the fundamental problems with the whole way that things are set up. Too many files name "modalias", and each having tiny bits of info. Its a mess. In other words, IMHO the fundamental problems are actually what causes these types of error problems. Bad setups make bad results.

I always try to look at ways to keep from having these types of problems come up. I can't address what others experience directly, but when I learn what's going on with my problem, I desire to find a way to fix it permanently. This helps me and others at the same time.

In this case, it is clear that the cause of the error is not readily available. Worse, we evidently don't know where it came from. That's pretty bad. This type of improperly supported coding has got to be changed. Errors must be more descriptive and self-explanitory, and the source must be much easier to find. As one CEO said when asked about his products tech support policies, "You'd think they never heard of the Maytag repairman. The product shouldn't need tech support."

Thanks.

You don't know what modalias files are and where they come from, do you?

All I need for verification is that 1) you find the file that contains these strings, 2) run modprobe --resolve-alias <bla> where <bla> is the contents of the offending modalias file.

That's right, I haven't a clue. Well, except to say that they most likely have something to do with LKMs. I would think that they come from the OS installation as part of the base structure of the file system.

My second comment actually answered the first item. The second item returns this line: bash: syntax error near unexpected token `('

Sorry I can't do any better. This just doesn't make any sense, except hopefully to a programmer.

It's really funny, you write texts that are several lines long, but I can't actually find any real information in any of those, just random blabla.

Anyway, there is nothing we can do about the "problem", except suppress the error message. The cause of the message is most likely a harmless bug in your BIOS.

I'm sorry; I'm used to dealing with more intelligent people. In any case, your inability to explain the real issue without conjecture certainly tells us that you are not qualified to understand it to begin with, and your inability to write correctly is the actual problem with our communication attempts. One can only assume you have a reading problem as well. That explains a lot. I should have earlier understood why there is a zero after brain.

By the way, why did you even get involved if you don't like to help people and can't offer any useful advice? Why don't we just pass this off to someone who knows something.

Thank you.

First, I am quite able to explain the issue. However, your above statements tell me that it's a waste of time, as you obviously lack basic knowledge of Linux, and this is a bugtracker, not a "Linux for beginners" course. Google the terms "sysfs" and "modalias" to educate yourself.

Second, I actually seem to have overloooked something in your replies. When running:
# modprobe --resolve-alias $(cat /sys/devices/virtual/dmi/id/modalias)
the error message
# bash: syntax error near unexpected token `('
means you have typed it incorrectly. The expected result is that you get the same error message as in your original post.

Third, the rest of your last statement is nothing but a rude insult, and I will try to ignore it.

Oh please don't ignore it. It was meant specifically for you. Your unbelievable ignorance of the issue is absolutely astounding. By your own admission, you miss the information you yourself requested. Worse, you compound your error by claiming that I types something in wrong. That has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. How the hell could any end user type something into the kernel code? Step aside, sonny!